Gordon,
You recently posted that NSI was funding ARIN with a million
dollars and that Don Telage would be involved because of the
large investment that he is making. Now you claim that ARIN
has no money and needs "members". Which is it ?
You also claimed that Don Telage does not "grok" the Internet.
If this is the case, then why would he be at the center of your
ARIN planning and why would he be the person that wrote and
presented the NSI alternative plan to the IAHC ?
Now you claim that ARIN will not be operational for 6 to 9 months.
Can you present the reasons for this delay ? How does the NSI
IPO impact this delay ?
Also, once again, what is your role and financial interest, if any,
in the ARIN planning ? It appears from your reports that you
have been one of the main people shaping the ARIN structure.
I thought that the "members" were supposed to shape ARIN.
Are you part of the membership committee or a founder ?
Jim Fleming
On Thursday, July 17, 1997 12:13 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook at netaxs.com] wrote:
@ I am not sure what Eric Weisberg thought he was accomplishing by this
@ post. I am sure that he did succeed in causing me to loose respect for his
@ modus operandi.
@
@ Cook: But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why
@ not? Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
@ situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
@ as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
@ there might be subsequent revisions.
@
@ Eric W: For many readers, this statement probably confirms the allegation
@ that Telage, alone, is making the basic decisions
@
@ Cook: your suggestion counsellor....not mine, and not what readers would
@ conclude if the read the WHOLE post with a mind set that has not found
@ telage, NSI, kim hubbard and ARIN guilty in advance
@
@ Eric W: rather than seeking rough consensus on how
@ the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
@ resources.
@
@ Cook: show me the statute that says telage is required to seek rough
@ consensus. This is *NOT* an IETF working group.
@
@ Eric W: You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon
@ after they are made and post them on the website.
@
@ Cook: beware when lawyers shift from quotes to their own words. Danger
@ signal.... Their agenda at work - generally one of obfuscation!
@ The closest thing I can find in my text is "If Don Telage couldn't get the
@ word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it. " I go on to
@ show how we arrived at the conclusion that Kim should be the one to get
@ the word out.
@
@ But you don't seem to see it. Let me draw you a bloody picture. ARIN is
@ not Telage's organization. His future is not tied up in it. Kim's future
@ *IS*. Now unfortunately because ARIN has just been born - is a wobbly calf
@ trying to stand on its own feet, while the coyotes circle smacking their
@ lips and smelling blood - there is a small problem for the calf. It needs
@ mother's milk (money) to nourish it and mothers hooves to kick any coyote
@ who tries to clamp down on the newborn's throat.
@
@ In other words ARIN needs members that will pay money before it can stand
@ on its own, and break the apron strings from the mother. This will happen
@ in 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile NSI, responding to the wishes of a number of
@ community workshops and fora has agreed to pay ARIN's bills during it's
@ start up. During the period while NSI has accepted financial
@ responsibility to pay ARIN's bills, they will be involved. No other
@ arrangement is fair or rational.
@
@ Eric W: It may have been a mistake to report that Telage did not reply to
@ your suggestion.
@
@ Cook: Where in the bloody hell do I "report that telage did not reply to
@ my suggestion!!?" I report no such thing and I resent your implying that I
@ did. He said that he did not have time to get out progress reports or
@ engage in these debates. To my suggestion that he give Kim Hubbard carte
@ blanche to get the word out, he agreed. I stated that extremely clearly!
@
@ Eric W: I am not sure why you related this if he did not agree to do it.
@ ^^^^ ^^
@
@ Cook: Related **what**, counsellor? If he did not agree to do **what**,
@ mr. Weisberg?
@
@ Eric W: This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
@ rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
@ the by-laws and the proposed revisions before they become final? What did
@ Telage say about that?"
@
@ Cook: Here, counsellor, in my humble opinion you stoop to Jim Fleming
@ tactics of surmise and innuendo. You, in my opinion, take the same tack as
@ McClure does in his determination to destroy ARIN.
@
@ It seems to me sir that not having gotten what your client wants by way of
@ address assignments, you are now determined to use the public lists of the
@ internet to do whatever you can to undermine the credibility of those
@ involved with the IP allocation process. I have seen other folk advocate
@ the use of lawyers to whip the internet in shape. It has failed up to this
@ point and I think it will continue to fail. You appear to me to believe
@ differently. That is your prerogative.
@
@ Oh, let me answer your do-you-still-beat-your-wife insinuation Eric. I DID
@ NOT ask Telage to let the community discuss the by-laws and the proposed
@ revisions before they become final. I did not need to ask him this because
@ to the best of MY knowledge he has not been the major force in drafting
@ the by laws. The major force has been Kim and the proposed members of the
@ ARIN board. As soon as they become the legal members of the board it is my
@ belief that you will have PLENTY of feedback from them with regard to the
@ bylaws. From what *I* can see you won't give them a bloody chance.... For
@ here we are for the last lord knows how many days with either you or larry
@ vaden picking ARIN apart, at all hours of the day and night seven days a
@ week. There are a lot of businesses out there not too dissimilar to your
@ own whose future stability will depend on an ARIN that works. The proposed
@ members of the ARIN board *ARE* highly respected members of the Internet
@ community who have played a significant role in creating the global
@ enterprise on which you now seek to provide a service. If you rip them to
@ shreds before they can put anything in place you will be judged
@ accordingly.
@
@ I am finished with taking my time to reply to your unwarranted comments. I
@ wish no further communication. I hope this is clear. Mail from you is
@ hereby routed to dev/null.
@
@ =========
@ here is my relevant text - some of which eric chose to quote, some of
@ which he chose not to quote.
@
@ I pointed out that the ARIN board was getting nibbled to death on the net
@ and felt unable to defend itself until legally it was indeed the ARIN
@ Board. I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
@ that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
@ obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
@ advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out
@ of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly.
@ But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
@ Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
@ situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
@ as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
@ there might be subsequent revisions.
@
@ But what is the urgency? We are doing the right thing, Don said. I
@ responded that such may be very true but that damned few people on the net
@ believed it and I emphasized that they were using NSI's apparent
@ unwillingness to supply information to destroy ARIN's credibility - that
@ NSI's "good intentions" would be meaningless in another month or two
@ because, if Kim and the ARIN Board could not be PROACTIVE, their
@ credibility would soon be gone. (I mentioned Farber's publication of
@ McClure's accusations as a case in point.) If Don Telage couldn't get the
@ word out himself, he needed to find some other way to do it.
@
@ For example letting Kim Hubbard, who would be leaving NSI employment and
@ becoming the ARIN president, KNOW that she had his full approval to make a
@ weekly progress report on the ARIN web page and naipr mail list as to what
@ had and had NOT been accomplished - during the week just finished - within
@ NSI and within ARIN. Well it might not have to be every week but could be
@ as often as she feels necessary, Don replied. Fine, I answered.
@ Absolutely. But let Kim understand that it is *her prerogative* what to
@ write and that it does not have to be cleared in advance within NSI before
@ she puts it out. Make a repeat of today's situation where I had to be
@ bugging Don about something that looked reasonable to him but that looked
@ like one helluva nasty problem to the outside world impossible. Impossible
@ because Kim would keep everyone adequately informed. OK sounds reasonable,
@ I can agree to that, said Don.
@
@ I went over my notes of the discussion with Don, asked if he agreed to
@ them and if I had his permission to go public with a write up this evening
@ on the net. He agreed. So here it is Don, and I thank you for taking the
@ time to hear my message.
@
@ ************************************************************************
@ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than
@ 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material
@ (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/
@ Internet: cook at cookreport.com On line speech of critics under
@ attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
@ ************************************************************************
@
@
@ On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Eric Weisberg wrote:
@
@ > Gordon,
@ >
@ > Thanks for the very interesting report. However, I fear it will have
@ > the opposite effect on your readers than you intended.
@ > Let me highlight some examples:
@ >
@ > Gordon Cook wrote:
@ >
@ > > (1.) The three
@ > > CURRENT members of the ARIN board are himself, Kim Hubbard, and Phil
@ > > Sbarbaro, outside legal counsel to NSI.
@ >
@ > Unsophisticatd readers will conclude that Don Telage IS the ARIN board
@ > for now.
@ >
@ > > I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
@ > > that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
@ > > obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
@ > > advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air
@ > out
@ > > of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating
@ > monopoly.
@ >
@ > This will just make people ask questions. What did it say til now?
@ > What objectionable features are being left in place? Why don't the
@ > members elect the advisory council from the beginning? Why not devise
@ > the new procedures in one, two or three months? Why aren't the members
@ > electing the board?
@ >
@ > > But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
@ > > Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
@ > > situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
@ > > as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
@ > > there might be subsequent revisions.
@ >
@ > For many readers, this statement probably
@ > confirms the allegation that Telage, alone, is making the basic
@ > decisions rather than seeking rough concensuson on how
@ > the Internet community should organize itself to distribute community
@ > resources.
@ >
@ > You mention having suggested the need to report his decisions soon after
@ > they are made and post them on the website. It may have been a mistake
@ > to
@ > report that Telage did not reply to your suggestion. I am not sure why
@ > you related this if he did not agree to do it.
@ >
@ > This particular comment probably also left the recipients of your
@ > rebuttal wondering "Did Gordon ask Telage to let the community discuss
@ > the by-laws and the
@ > proposed revisions before they become final? What did Telage say about
@ > that?"
@ >
@ > Please continue to keep us informed of what you learn on all this.
@ >
@ >
@ > Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
@ > Internet Texoma, Inc.
@ > The ISP which DIDN'T
@ >
@
@
@
--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation